C.

Summative evaluation
Summative evaluation is the type of evaluation with which most
teachers and program administrators are familiar and which seeks to
make decision about the worth or value of different aspects of the
curriculum. This is known as summative evaluation. Summative evaluation
is concerned with determining the effectiveness of a program, its
efficiency, and to some extent with its acceptability. It takes place after a
program has been implemented and seeks to answer questions such as
these:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.

How effective was the course? Did it achieve its aims?

What did the students learn?
How well was the course received by students and teachers?
Did the materials work well?
Were the objectives adequate or do they need to be revised?
Were the placement adn achievement test adequate?
Was the amount of time spent on each unit eufficient?
How appropriate were the teaching methods?
What problems were encountered during the course?

In order to decide if a course is effective, criteria for effectiveness

need to be identified. There are many different measures of a courses
effectiveness and each measure can be used for different purposes. For
example:
Mastery of objectives: One way of measuring the effectiveness of a
course is to ask How far have the objectives been achieved? Each
objective in the course is examined and criteria for succesful achievement
of each objective are chosen. In a course on speaking skill, for example,
an objective might be : In group discussions students will liosten to and
respond to the opinions of others in their group. The extent to which the
students have mastered this objective at the end of the course can be
assessed by the teachers observing students during group discussions
and recording on a scale the extent to which they listen and respond to
opinions. If students perfomance on this objective is poor, reasons would
have to be identified. Perhaps, for example, insufficient opportunities wre
provided in the course for students to practice this task, perhaps the
materials relating to this objective were too difficult or not sufficiently
interesting.

However, mastery of obejectives does not provide a full picture of the

effectiveness of a course. Objective can be achieved despite defe ts in a
course. Students may have realized that the teaching or materials wre
poor or insufficient and so spent a lot of extra time in private study to
compensate for it. Or perhaps mastery of an objective was achieved but
the same objective could have been convered in half the amount of time
devoted to it. Or the program might have achieved its objectives but
students have a very negative percaption of it because it was not
stimulating or the pacing was inappropriate.
Perfomance on tests: A parts from the relatively infromal way of
assessing mastery of objectives, formal test are probably the commonest
means used measure achievement. Such test might be ynit test given at
the end of each unit of teaching materials, class test or quizzes devised by
teachers and administered at varous stages throughout the course, or as
formal exit tests designed to measure the extent to which objectives have
been achieved. Weir (1995) points our that achievement tests can have
an important washback effect on teaching and learning. They can help in
the making of decisions about needed changes to a program, such as
which objectives need more attention or revision. Brindley (1989) reports,
however, that in programs he studuied in Australia, teachers preferred to
rely on informal methods of ongoing assessment rather than formal exit
tests. About the use of informal methods, he comments:
This dose not seen to ben suffieciently explicit to meet expectations
and requirements of either administrators or learners for more formal
infromation on learners achievement of a course or a unit. The infromal
methods of ongoing assesment provided by theacers do not provied the
kind of explicit infromation on achievement required by learners and
administrators. (Brindley 1989, 43)
Weir (1995) arguers for the need for better measures of summative
evaluation and for the development of progress-sensitive perfomance tsts
for use during courses.
Measures of acceptability: A course might lead to satisfactory
achievement of its objectives and good levels of perfomance on exit tests

yet still be

rated negatively by teachers or students. Alternatively, if

everyone liked a course and spoke ebthusiastically of it, could this be

more important than the determined by assessments of teachers
students.

Reaons

for

course

being

considered

acceptable

and
or

unacceptable might relate to such factors as time-tabling, class size,

choice of materials, or teachers teaching styles.
Retention rate or reenrollment rate: A measure of a courses
effectiveness that may be important from an institutions point of view is
the extent to which students continue in the course thtoughout its
duration and the percentage of students who reenroll for another course
at the end. If there is a significant dropout rate, is this true of other
courses inthe institution and the community or is it a factor of a goven
course only?
Efficiency of the course: Another measure of the success of a course is
how straightforward the course was to develop and implement. This may
be a reflection of the number of problems that occured during the course.,
the time spent on planning and course development, the need for
specialized materials and teacher training, and the amount of time
needed for consultations and meetings.